Computers in Human Behavior

Full length article

Are sex differences in antisocial and prosocial Facebook use explained by narcissism and relational self-construal?

Nelli Ferenczi ^a

^,*

, Tara C. Marshall ^b , Kathrine Bejanyan ^b

aGoldsmiths, University of London, United Kingdom

bBrunel University London, United Kingdom

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 2 August 2016 Received in revised form 15 August 2017 Accepted 23 August 2017 Available online 31 August 2017

Keywords:

Facebook Social networking Narcissism

Relational self-construal Prosocial online behaviour Antisocial online behaviour

a b s t r a c t

Previous research has found that some people use Facebook for antisocial purposes, such as for“trolling”

or attention-seeking. Conversely, others use Facebook in prosocial, relationship-enhancing ways, such as to increase belonging or to connect with friends. Few studies, however, have investigated differences between men and women in their antisocial and prosocial use of Facebook. The present study sought to address this research gap by examining whether these sex differences might be explained by narcissism and relational self-construal (i.e., the extent to which an individual defines their self in terms of close relationships). To this end, 573 participants living in the United States completed measures of narcissism, relational self-construal, and motives for using Facebook. Results revealed that men reported more antisocial motives for using Facebook than did women, which was explained by their greater narcissism.

Conversely, women reported stronger prosocial motives for using Facebook, which was explained by their more relational self-construal. We discuss ways that thesefindings can contribute to the devel- opment of interventions to promote prosocial online behaviour.

©2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1. Introduction

Logging into Facebook, individuals are afforded a variety of opportunities in how they choose to interact with others. They can engage in attention-seeking or trolling, or reach out to their friends and feel a sense of connectedness and belonging. Do men and women differ in these uses of Facebook? While some researchers have assumed that men and women share the same motives for engaging with others on Facebook (Hargittai, 2007), others have called for further investigation into sex differences in motives for using social networks (Lin, Califf,

&

Featherman, 2013). To

fi

ll this research gap, the present study examined sex differences in the extent of endorsing two types of motives for using Facebook:

antisocial motives, such as using Facebook to seek attention or to bully/troll others, and prosocial motives, such as using Facebook to increase belonging and to connect with others. This study sought to understand whether these sex differences could be explained by the extent to which men and women differ in narcissism and self- construal.

We predicted that men would be more strongly motivated to use Facebook for antisocial purposes, in part because their higher narcissism and the resulting greater focus on their self encour- ages antagonism towards others and the sort of self- aggrandizement that may alienate others (Emmons, 1987; Morf

&

Rhodewalt, 2001). In contrast, we proposed that women

would be more strongly motivated to use Facebook for prosocial purposes, in part because their more relational self-construal

e

the extent that they de

fi

ne their identity through their social relationships (Cross, Bacon,

&

Morris, 2000)

e

and thus their focus on close others (Cross, Hardin,

&

Gercek-Swing, 2011) en- courages their greater engagement in relationship-promoting behaviours (Mattingly, Oswald,

&

Clark, 2011). Importantly, these

fi

ndings may contribute to the tailoring of interventions and policies which encourage prosocial online behaviours by promoting more relational ways of interacting while curbing antisocial behaviour. In the following sections, we discuss the ways that sex differences in antisocial and prosocial Facebook motives might be explained by sex differences in narcissism and self-construal, respectively.

1.1. Sex differences in antisocial Facebook use

We focused on two components of antisocial motives for using

*Corresponding author. Department of Psychology, Goldsmiths, University of London, New Cross, London SE14 6NW, United Kingdom.

E-mail address:[email protected](N. Ferenczi).

Contents lists available atScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / c o m p h u m b e h

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.033

0747-5632/©2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Facebook: attention-seeking and bullying/trolling. Attention- seeking was de

fi

ned as online behaviour which serves an in- dividual's egoistic concerns of self-presentation in relational con- texts (Seidman, 2014). Importantly, attention-seeking on Facebook is construed as a negative grati

fi

cation (M€ antym€ aki

&

Najmul Islam, 2016) as it may decrease perceived social cohesion (Hollenbaugh

&

Ferris, 2014). In addition, using Facebook for attention-seeking can be conceptualized as antisocial because it is perceived as annoying and the perpetrators as unlikeable (Choi, Panek, Nardis,

&

Toma, 2015), and has been linked with exhibitionism (Carpenter, 2012).

Attention-seeking behaviour may be detrimental to our social cir- cles because it can encourage negative social comparison between individuals, it increases the negative content of posted information, and because it can lead to exploitation without mutual bene

fi

ts to social capital and social-grooming needs (Carpenter, 2012; Fox

&

Moreland, 2015; Garcia

&

Sikstr€ om, 2014; Paulhus

&

Williams, 2002). Previous research has found that men are more likely to use Facebook for self-promotion (Karl, Peluchette,

&

Schlaegel, 2010), especially to accentuate status and risk-taking tendencies (Tifferet

&

Vilnai-Yavetz, 1991).

Second, we investigated bullying/trolling, which refers to destructive, disruptive, or deceptive online behaviour that evokes negative emotional reactions in others and has no apparent pur- pose (Buckels, Trapnell,

&

Paulhus, 2014; Thacker

&

Grif

fi

ths, 2012).

Importantly, trolling can be conceived as a type of cyberbullying (Willard, 2007). Men are more likely to engage in bullying on Facebook (Kokkinos, Baltzidis,

&

Xynogala, 2016), and trolling on- line in general (Sest

&

March 2017) relative to women. However, no research has yet examined

why

men might engage in these anti- social uses of Facebook. In the present study, we hypothesised that narcissism may be a trait that explains men's more antisocial mo- tives for using Facebook relative to women.

Trait narcissism is a form of sub-clinical narcissism that varies within the general population (Foster, Campbell,

&

Twenge, 2003).

Narcissists are self-focused and characterised primarily by their exploitativeness, need for leadership, grandiose self-perceptions, and self-entitlement (Ackerman et al., 2011). They show increased attention-seeking, egotistical biases, nonconformity, hostility, prejudice, and a lack of consideration and tolerance for others (Ackerman et al., 2011; Campbell, Foster,

&

Finkel, 2002; Campbell, Rudich,

&

Sedikides, 2002; Hodson, Hogg,

&

MacInnis, 2009; Miller

&

Campbell, 2008; Morf

&

Rhodewalt, 2001; Raskin

&

Terry, 1988).

A recent meta-analysis of 350 studies found that men consistently score higher on measures of narcissism than women (Grijalva et al., 2014). Relatedly, the key characteristics of narcissism suggest that it is one facet of an agentic gender stereotype generally attributed to men (Grijalva et al., 2014). Indeed, whilst they rate themselves highly on agentic traits (e.g., intelligence, extraversion), narcissists tend to undervalue communal traits such as morality and agree- ableness (Campbell, Rudich, et al., 2002). Additionally, narcissists tend to respond to negative feedback with derogation (Kernis

&

Sun, 1994), and their self-representations readily feature aggres- sive and sadistic elements (Raskin

&

Terry, 1988). We argue that these characteristics enable narcissists to use Facebook in antisocial ways to meet their self-promotion needs and to counter ego threats (Bushman

&

Baumeister, 1998).

Accordingly, when narcissists use Facebook, they tend to do so for self-promotion (DeWall, Buffardi, Bonser,

&

Campbell, 2011; Fox

&

Rooney, 2015; Ryan

&

Xenos, 2011) and to elicit attention from

their circles (Bergman, Fearrington, Davenport,

&

Bergman, 2011).

For example, narcissists are more likely to post self-promoting content (Buffardi

&

Campbell, 2008), including frequent Facebook status updates (Ong et al., 2011) and brag about their achievements in their updates (Marshall, Lefringhausen,

&

Ferenczi, 2015).

Notably, narcissists receive less validation in the form of likes and

comments the more they post on Facebook, suggesting that their self-promotion behaviours may be perceived as socially unpleasant (Choi et al., 2015). They also tend to seek more social support than they are willing to reciprocate, get angry when social contacts do not comment on their content, and retaliate against negative comments (Carpenter, 2012). Indeed, they are more likely to engage in Facebook bullying (Kokkinos et al., 2016).

In this vein, many of the traits that are descriptive of a narcissist are also descriptive of a bully, such as proneness to aggression and manipulativeness (Locke, 2009), low agreeableness (Bradlee

&

Emmons, 1992; Karl et al., 2010; Rhodewalt

&

Morf, 1995), and reactions such as derogation to negative feedback with the intent to re-establish power and self-esteem (Baldasare, Bauman, Goldman,

&

Robie, 2012; Kernis

&

Sun, 1994; Rafferty

&

Vander Ven, 2014;

Twenge

&

Campbell, 2003). Narcissism is also linked with a drive for negative social in

fl

uence and power, which is the result of sel

fi

sh behaviour and self-serving interactions (Foulkes, Viding, McCrory,

&

Neumann, 2014). In turn, this motivation for negative social in

fl

uence and power also undergirds trolling behaviour (Craker

&

March 2016), further highlighting how narcissists can meet their need for social in

fl

uence and power (Ackerman et al., 2011) within a social media context by engaging in such behav- iour. Narcissism (by virtue of the exploitative and self-entitled components) has already been linked with cyberbullying (Karl et al., 2010; Kokkinos et al., 2016). Thus, we hypothesised that narcissism would mediate men's use of Facebook for more antiso- cial purposes.

1.2. Sex differences in prosocial Facebook use

In the present study, prosocial motives for using Facebook were conceptualized as need for belonging and maintaining relation- ships through connecting and communicating. Prosocial behaviour can include empathic, warm, pro-relationship behaviour that pro- motes a sense of belongingness and connection between in- dividuals (Dainton

&

Stafford, 1993; Fehr, Harasymchuk,

&

Sprecher, 2014). In terms of online prosocial behaviour, in- dividuals may use Facebook to increase their sense of belonging to relevant social groups (Nadkarni

&

Hofmann, 2012). Women are more likely to use Facebook to maintain existing relationships relative to men (Joiner et al., 2012): they are more likely to use it to express emotional support (Joiner et al., 2014), engage in more prosocial interactions (Buffardi

&

Campbell, 2008), and to communicate (Junco, 2013; Muscanell

&

Guadagno, 2012). We hypothesised that sex differences in relational self-construal could explain why women may have stronger prosocial motives to use Facebook than men.

In contrast to the self-focused orientation of narcissists, in- dividuals with a relational self-construal build a positive sense of self by focusing on the well-being of close others and by cultivating successful relationships (Cross, Morris,

&

Gore, 2002). In Western, individualist cultures, women tend to construct a more relational self than men due to differences in socialization and the prevalence of gendered social norms (Cross et al., 2002; Marshall, 2010). For example, socializing emotional openness in girls relative to boys, or the sex division in caregiving occupations in adulthood, may encourage women to construct and maintain a self that is more aware of others

’

needs (Cross

&

Madson, 1997). Indeed, individuals with a more relational self-construal report increased self- con

fi

dence when thinking of close others (Gabriel, Renaud,

&

Tippin, 2007), rate the quality of their relationships more highly (Morry

&

Kito, 2009), and have more optimistic evaluations of how committed others are to the relationship (Cross

&

Morris, 2003).

Accordingly, when pursuing goals, they take into account the needs,

commitments, and desires of others (Gore, Cross,

&

Kanagawa,

2008). Because individuals with a more relational self-construal engage in more relationship-maintenance behaviours such as sacri

fi

cing self-interests, being accommodating, and providing support (Mattingly et al., 2011), we hypothesised that individuals with more relational self-construals would report more prosocial motives for using Facebook.

The present study is the

fi

rst to investigate the association of relational self-construal with prosocial motives and behaviours online. In terms of its role in antisocial online interactions, rela- tional self-construal is associated with decreased cyberbullying behaviours such as sending infected emails and threatening to release private photographs and information (Çetín, Ero glu, Peker, Akbaba,

&

Pepsoy, 2012). Additionally, interdependent self- construal

e

which is closely linked with a relational self- construal

e

is associated with using Facebook for belonging (Chang, 2015). Thus, it is logical to surmise that individuals high in relational self-construal would make use of the relationship- promoting opportunities afforded by Facebook, such as engaging in frequent contact with close others to maintain their relationships (Sosik

&

Bazarova, 2014). Overall, frequent use of Facebook helps to satisfy individuals

’

relatedness needs (Sheldon, Abad,

&

Hinsch, 2011), which we posit is particularly important for those who construct their self in terms of their relationships.

1.3. Hypotheses

Hypothesis 1

. Men will report greater narcissism than women and, in turn, report greater use of Facebook for antisocial purposes

e

attention-seeking and bullying/trolling.

Hypothesis 2

. Women will report a more relational self-construal than men and, in turn, report greater use of Facebook for prosocial purposes

e

belonging and connecting.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

573 participants (M

age¼

30.79,

SD¼

9.17) living in the United States completed the measures. Inspection of IP addresses and demographic information revealed two duplicates that were removed from the original sample of 575 participants. Participants indicated their sex (females: 59%). Participants also reported that they actively used Facebook for 107.78 min on average per day (SD

¼

121.47), and 6.46 days (SD

¼

2.16) per week. They reported an average of 304.44 Facebook friends (SD

¼

329.44). Participants reported the following ethnicities: White (77%), Hispanic (6%), Af- rican (5%), Mixed (5%), East Asian (2%), Southeast Asian (1%), South Asian (1%), Middle Eastern (1%), Caribbean (1%), and First Nations (1%). Most participants were employed full or part-time (65%), or a full or part-time student (20%). The majority of participants were recruited via Amazon MTurk (90%), and were paid $1.00; the rest were recruited online through web forums and received no payment.

¹

2.2. Materials and procedure

Participants completed demographic questions and the following measures through an online survey.

2.2.1. Narcissism

The 13-item short form of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI-13; Gentile et al., 2013) assesses three aspects of subclinical narcissism (grandiose exhibitionism, need for leadership, and sense of entitlement/exploitation), with higher scores representing greater narcissism. Participants make a forced choice between two statements; one choice represents higher narcissism and the other less (e.g.,

“

I

fi

nd it easy to manipulate people

”

versus

“

I don't like it when I

fi

nd myself manipulating people

”

; a

¼

0.73).

2.2.2. Relational self-construal

The Relational Self-Construal Scale (Cross et al., 2000) is an 11- item scale (1

¼Strongly Disagree,

7

¼Strongly Agree) which mea-

sures the tendency to de

fi

ne the self in terms of relationships with close others (e.g.,

“

My close relationships are an important re

fl

ec- tion of who I am

”

; a

¼

0.90).

2.2.3. Uses of Facebook scale

Items were adapted from several sources (e.g., Hughes, Rowe, Batey,

&

Lee, 2012; Seidman, 2013) to measure prosocial and antisocial uses of Facebook.

²

The use of Facebook to connect with others and to provide social support (

fi

ve items; e.g.,

“

I use Face- book

“

like

”

and

“

comment

”

functions to show support for others

”

) and to belong (eight items; e.g.,

“

I use Facebook to feel included

”

) were highly correlated (r

¼

0.50,

p¼

0.001), and therefore collapsed into a single scale to measure prosocial motives ( a

¼

0.91). Seven items ( a

¼

0.91) measured the use of Facebook for antisocial pur- poses such as attention-seeking (e.g.,

“

I use Facebook to show off

”

) and trolling (e.g.,

“

I use Facebook to be mean to people

”

).

³

The items were rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1

¼ Strongly Disagree,

7

¼Strongly Agree). The prosocial and antisocial items are listed in

the Appendix.

3. Results

Descriptive statistics and Pearson's correlations are reported in Table 1. In line with our hypotheses, men reported greater narcis- sism (M

¼

4.47,

SD¼

3.10) relative to women (M

¼

3.67,

SD¼

2.69),

t(426.61)¼

3.11,

p¼

0.002,

d¼

0.28. Additionally, women reported a stronger relational self (M

¼

53.71,

SD¼

12.06) compared to men (M

¼

51.53,

SD¼

11.78),

t(538)¼

2.08,

p¼

0.038,

d¼

0.18.

We then conducted hierarchical regressions to investigate the association of relational self-construal and narcissism with the two motives for using Facebook (see Table 2). Sex (females

¼

1, males

¼

1) was entered in the

fi

rst step, along with three control variables: age, average daily time spent on Facebook (in minutes), and number of Facebook friends. Narcissism and relational self- construal were entered in the second step. Men reported using Facebook signi

fi

cantly more for antisocial motives, whilst women

1 Analyses based on a part of this dataset have been reported elsewhere (Marshall et al., 2015).

2 These items were drawn from a larger pool of 87 items that measured a broad range of motives for using Facebook as part of a larger research project. Principal axis factoring (PAF) with oblique rotation (direct oblimin) revealed 13 factors with eigenvalues above 1 that together accounted for 66.05% of the total variance in the model. These factors reflected the following motives for using Facebook: closeness, belonging, antisocial, surveillance of an ex-partner, Facebook groups, expressing negative affect, procrastination, obtaining new information, career promotion, games, mating, entertainment, and self-disclosure/sharing positive emotion. The current study focused only on the factors reflecting prosocial and antisocial behaviour; the remaining factors were not germane to the present hypotheses, and therefore will not be mentioned further.

3 We argue that attention-seeking and showing off on Facebook, a socially aversive behaviour, is distinct from sharing good news and positive affect with Facebook friends. Indeed, our factor analysis revealed that the factor reflecting antisocial motives (which included attention-seeking) was distinct from the factor reflecting self-disclosure and sharing positive emotion.

reported using Facebook signi

fi

cantly more for prosocial motives.

Additionally, narcissism was linked with greater use of Facebook for antisocial motives. Endorsing a relational self was linked with greater use of Facebook for prosocial motives.

To test the indirect effects of sex on using Facebook for prosocial and antisocial motives via narcissism and relational self-construal, we ran bootstrap tests of multiple mediation using Hayes

’

(2013) PROCESS SPSS script. We entered age, time spent on Facebook daily, and number of Facebook friends as covariates, and narcissism and relational self-construal as simultaneous mediators. Examina- tion of the 95% bias-corrected con

fi

dence intervals (CI) from 1000 bootstrap samples revealed support for the hypothesised path- ways.

⁴

The associations of sex with antisocial motives (B

¼

.29,

SE¼

0.13 [CI: .55, .05]) were signi

fi

cantly mediated by narcis- sism. Furthermore, the indirect effects of sex with prosocial motives (B

¼

0.38,

SE¼

0.19 [CI: .09, .84]) were signi

fi

cantly mediated by relational self-construal.

4. Discussion

The present results suggest that men's more antisocial use of Facebook is explained in part by their greater narcissism, whereas women's more prosocial use of Facebook is explained partly by their more relational self-construal. First, con

fi

rming previous

fi

ndings (Carpenter, 2012; Grijalva et al., 2014; Junco, 2013; Karl et al., 2010), men reported greater narcissism, and they were more likely to use Facebook for antisocial purposes. What is novel about the present results is that we showed that narcissism partly

mediated men's greater use of Facebook for antisocial purposes. In terms of men's greater narcissism, one explanation may be that as the result of gender stereotyping, agentic characteristics such as competitiveness, assertiveness, need for achievement, and domi- nance tend to be encouraged in the socialization of men, and punished in women. Note that the reverse holds for communal characteristics such as a relational self-construal (Grijalva et al., 2014). Thus, narcissism can be perceived as a constellation of exaggerated agentic traits (Grijalva et al., 2014). Relatedly, our re- sults parallel previous

fi

ndings on distinctions between agentic and communal ways of using Facebook (Horton, Reid, Barber, Miracle,

&

Green, 2014), and in particular, the link between narcissism and agentic Facebook use.

In turn, the link between narcissism and stronger antisocial motives for using Facebook may be situated within the general tendency of narcissists to hold extremely positive self-views that are reliant on external social feedback (Rhodewalt

&

Morf, 1995) as well as their hostile and exploitative behaviour (Ackerman et al., 2011; Hodson et al., 2009; Raskin

&

Terry, 1988). These

fi

ndings may represent a narcissist's egoistic-orientation when pursuing relational closeness (Park, Troisi,

&

Maner, 2010) through seeking attention (Seidman, 2014), exaggerating personal importance (Blachnio, Przepiorka,

&

Rudnicka, 2016), and cultivating a Face- book pro

fi

le that attracts views and admiration (Davenport, Bergman, Bergman,

&

Fearrington, 2014), but which is ultimately not concerned with prosocial outcomes. Cyberbullying/trolling may be another strategy for gaining attention (Carpenter, 2012) and thus exerting negative social power and in

fl

uence (Craker

&

March 2016) for narcissists. Indeed, our

fi

ndings provide support for the association of narcissism with self-promotion and cyberbullying (Carpenter, 2012; DeWall et al., 2011; Fox

&

Rooney, 2015; Karl et al., 2010; Kokkinos et al., 2016; Marshall et al., 2015).

Our

fi

ndings also suggested that women are less likely to use Facebook to bully and troll others. In this vein, we found that women were also more likely to use Facebook to connect for pro- social purposes. These results are consistent with other

fi

ndings that underscore women's prosocial motives for using Facebook relative to men: women report having more Facebook friends (Pempek Yermolayeva,

&

Calvert, 2009), they are more likely to use Facebook for communication (Karl et al., 2010), and to engage in online family activities (McAndrew

&

Jeong, 2012). Importantly, we found that women's more relational self-construal partly explained why they have more prosocial motives for using Facebook

e

they strongly emphasize connectedness with others (Cross et al., 2002), whether online or of

fl

ine. In addition, women's use of Facebook to self-disclose and express positive affect was mediated by their increased relational self-construal, further supporting the use of self-disclosure as a tactic to increase relational intimacy (Park et al., 2010). These

fi

ndings re

fl

ect the tendency of individuals with a

Table 1

Means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations. Correlations for females are reported above the diagonal.

1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Time on Facebook .04 .04 .01 .22^** .24^**

2. Facebook friends .05 .04 .17^** .02 .16^**

3. Relational self .07 -.02 .16^** .15^* .04

4. Narcissism .14^* .04 .01 .04 .31^**

5. FB Prosocial motives .24^** .09 .37^** .20^** .24^**

6. FB Antisocial Motives .25^** .10 .03 .42^** .47^**

Mean (females) 121.16 303.59 53.71 3.67 59.01 12.30

SD (females) 120.35 316.68 12.06 2.69 14.28 7.31

Mean (males) 88.28 308.18 51.53 4.47 49.80 15.33

SD (males) 121.07 348.87 11.78 3.10 16.86 9.77

t-values (female-male comparisons) 3.04^* .16 2.08^* 3.11^* 6.44^** 3.86^**

Note:^**p<.001,^*p<.05.

Table 2

Associations of relational self-construal with using Facebook for prosocial and antisocial motives.

Model Prosocial Motives Antisocial Motives

b ^p b ^p

STEP 1

Age .06 .176 .18 .001

Sex .27 .001 .20 .001

Time on FB .23 .001 .19 .001

FB friends .11 .014 .12 .008

R² .16 .001 .13 .001

STEP 2

Relational self .21 .001 .04 .302

Narcissism .07 .116 .28 .001

DR² .05 .001 .08 .001

4 Unstandardized coefficients are reported for indirect effects, in line with guidelines for reporting unstandardized values in macro testing indirect effects (Hayes, 2009).

more relational self-construal to af

fi

rm their sense of self by maintaining harmonious and positive close relationships (Cross, Gore,

&

Morris, 2003).

4.1. Limitations and further research

This research can provide a springboard for investigating the links between sex, personality, and prosocial and antisocial behaviour online, and we encourage future research to replicate these

fi

ndings, and address four limitations to highlight additional factors which may contribute to this model. First, the correlational design cannot establish causal links between variables. Longitudi- nal and experimental approaches, such as priming a relational self- construal (Ferenczi, Marshall,

&

Bejanyan, 2015; Tra

fi

mow, Triandis,

&

Goto, 1991) could gauge whether it boosts prosocial motives and decreases antisocial motives for using Facebook, not only in women but also in men. Second, the sample consisted of participants from the US who were mostly White. Narcissism is more prevalent in individualistic societies such as the US, which value the development of a distinct and unique self (Foster et al., 2003). Future research should sample low-individualistic pop- ulations to examine whether the links found here can be replicated elsewhere. In addition, because participants' self-reported motives may be prone to response bias, future research should obtain more objective ratings of prosocial and antisocial indices of Facebook use, e.g., by coding participants

’

Facebook pro

fi

les (Buffardi

&

Campbell, 2008).

Finally, it should be noted that the correlation between prosocial and antisocial motives were of a medium effect size. This suggests that prosocial and antisocial motives are unlikely to be mutually exclusive; indeed, individuals may use Facebook for both prosocial and antisocial purposes. Indeed, our

fi

ndings further support the duality of Facebook use (M€ antym€ aki

&

Najmul Islam, 2016). Future research should further examine underlying factors in the situa- tions in which individuals choose to behave prosocially, and the situations in which they choose to behave antisocially, including the roles of psychopathy and empathy (Sest

&

March 2017), and the drive for negative social in

fl

uence (Craker

&

March 2016) in anti- social online behaviour. Despite the limitations of the present research, it contributes to an emerging understanding of sex dif- ferences in how individuals choose to use online social networking sites. Importantly, our

fi

ndings re

fl

ect the duality of Facebook use for both prosocial and antisocial motives.

4.2. Conclusion

Overall, men were more motivated to use Facebook antisocially, whilst women were more likely to use it prosocially. These sex differences are a further re

fl

ection of the pervasiveness of socialised agentic and communal gender stereotypes in the behaviours of men and women, respectively, even on social networking sites (Cross et al., 2002; Grijalva et al., 2014; Wood

&

Eagly, 2002). In terms of the practical implications of our

fi

ndings, recent research indicates that the low empathy of narcissists is not re

fl

ective of their inability to empathize, suggesting that interventions which encourage narcissists to empathize (Hepper, Hart,

&

Sedikides, 2014) may also be effective in reducing their antisocial motives for using Facebook. Coupled with

fi

ndings that

‘

anyone

’

can become a troll in the right context, such as previous exposure to trolling behaviour in an online discussion (Cheng, Bernstein, Danescu- Niculescu-Mizil,

&

Leskovec, 2017), our

fi

ndings can help shape interventions which emphasize relational self-construal, thus decreasing the destructiveness of trolling behaviour. Furthermore, promoting a more relational self-construal may encourage motives to use Facebook in socially constructive and harmonious ways

which nonetheless meet fundamental needs for belonging and enable the maintenance of relationships. This research therefore contributes to the crucial conversation of understanding why in- dividuals have antisocial motives for using Facebook, and how to decrease the detrimental aspects of online interactions. Combined with understanding why others interact with others in prosocial ways online, Facebook can become a safer place for all of its users.

Appendix

Uses of Facebook Scale Antisocial

I use Facebook to show off

I use Facebook to make people feel jealous

I use Facebook to display my wealth

I use Facebook to be mean to people

I use Facebook to post sexy pictures of myself

I use Facebook to make myself seem mysterious

I use Facebook to badmouth people.

Prosocial

I use Facebook to communicate with people I do not often see

I use Facebook to reconnect with people I've lost contact with

I use Facebook to keep in touch with people

I use Facebook to see what other people are up to

I use Facebook

“

like

”

and

“

comment

”

functions to show support for others

I use Facebook to feel included I use Facebook to feel closer to others

I use Facebook to make others feel closer to me I use Facebook because it makes me feel like I

fi

t in

I use Facebook to obtain

“

likes

”

and comments from others I use Facebook to express the way I'd ideally like to be.

I use Facebook to feel loved.

I used Facebook because it makes me connected to others.

References

Ackerman, R. A., Witt, E. A., Donnellan, M. B., Trzesniewski, K. H., Robins, R. W., &

Kashy, D. A. (2011). What does the narcissistic personality inventory really measure?Assessment, 18, 67e87.

Baldasare, A., Bauman, S., Goldman, L., & Robie, A. (2012). Cyberbullying? Voices of college students.Disability and Psychoeducation Studies, 5, 127e155.

Bergman, S. M., Fearrington, M. E., Davenport, S. W., & Bergman, J. Z. (2011). Mil- lenials,narcissism, and social networking: What narcissists do on social networking sites and why.Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 706e711.

Blachnio, A., Przepiorka, A., & Rudnicka, P. (2016). Narcissicm and self-esteem as predictors of dimensions of Facebook use.Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 296e301.

Bradlee, P. M., & Emmons, R. A. (1992). Locating narcissism within the interpersonal circumplex and thefive-factor model.Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 821e830.

Buckels, E. E., Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus, D. L. (2014). Trolls just want to have fun.

Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 97e102.

Buffardi, L. E., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Narcissism and social networking web sites.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 1303e1314.

Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self- esteem, and direct and displaced aggression: Does self-love or self-hate lead to violence?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 219e229.

Campbell, W. K., Foster, C. A., & Finkel, E. J. (2002). Does self-love lead to love for others? A story of narcissistic game playing.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 340e354.

Campbell, W. K., Rudich, E. A., & Sedikides, C. (2002). Narcissism, self-esteem, and the positivity of self-views: Two portraits of self-love. Personality& Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 358e368.

Carpenter, C. J. (2012). Narcissism on Facebook: Self-promotional and anti-social behavior.Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 482e486.

Çetín, B., Eroglu, Y., Peker, A., Akbaba, S., & Pepsoy, S. (2012). The investigation of relationship among relational-interdependent self-construal cyberbullying, and

psychological disharmony in adolescents: An investigation of structural equa- tion modelling.Educational Sciences: Theory&Practice, 12, 646e653.

Chang, C. (2015). Self-construal and Facebook activities: Exploring differences in social interaction orientation.Computers in Human Behavior, 53, 91e101.

Cheng, J., Bernstein, M., Danescu-Niculescu-Mizil, & Leskovec, J. (2017). Anyone can become a troll: Causes of trolling behavior in online discussions. InProceedings of the 2017 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work and social computing, 1217e1230.

Choi, M., Panek, E. T., Nardis, Y., & Toma, C. L. (2015). When social media isn't social:

Friends' responsiveness to narcissists on Facebook.Personality and Individual Differences, 77, 209e214.

Craker, N., & March, E. (2016). The dark side of Facebook: The dark triad, negative social potency, and trolling behaviours.Personality and Individual Differences, 102, 79e84.

Cross, S. E., Bacon, P. L., & Morris, M. L. (2000). The relational-interdependent self- construal and relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 791e808.

Cross, S. E., Gore, J. S., & Morris, M. L. (2003). The relational-interdependent self- construal, self-concept consistency, and well-being.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 933e944.

Cross, S. E., Hardin, E. E., & Gercek-Swing, B. (2011). The what, how, why, and where of self-construal.Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15, 142e179.

Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender.

Psychological Bulletin, 122, 5e37.

Cross, S. E., & Morris, M. L. (2003). Getting to know you: The relational self- construal, relational cognition, and well-being.Personality&Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 512e523.

Cross, S. E., Morris, M. L., & Gore, J. S. (2002). Thinking about oneself and others: The relational-interdependent self-construal and social cognition.Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 82, 399e418.

Dainton, M., & Stafford, L. (1993). Routine maintenance behaviors: A comparison of relationship type, partner similarity and sex differences.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 10, 255e271.

Davenport, S. W., Bergman, S. M., Bergman, J. Z., & Fearrington, M. E. (2014). Twitter versus Facebook: Exploring the role of narcissism in the motives and usage of different social media platforms.Computers in Human Behavior, 32, 212e220.

DeWall, N. C., Buffardi, L. E., Bonser, I., & Campbell, W. K. (2011). Narcissism and implicit attention seeking: Evidence from linguistic analysis of social networking and online presentation.Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 57e62.

Emmons, R. A. (1987). Narcissism: Theory and measurement.Jour of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 11e17.

Fehr, B., Harasymchuk, C., & Sprecher, S. (2014). Compassionate love in romantic relationships: A review and some newfindings.Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 31, 575e600.

Ferenczi, N., Marshall, T. C., & Bejanyan, K. (2015). The protective and detrimental effects of self-construal on perceived rejection from heritage culture members.

Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 100.

Foster, J. D., Campbell, W. K., & Twenge, J. M. (2003). Individual differences in narcissism: Inflated self-views across the lifespan and around the world.Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 469e486.

Foulkes, L., McCrory, E. J., Neumann, C. S., & Viding, E. (2014). Inverted social reward:

Associations between psychopathic traits and self-report and experimental measures of social reward.PLoS One, 9(8), 1e10.

Fox, J., & Moreland, J. (2015). The dark side of social networking sites: An explo- ration of the relational and psychological stressors associated with Facebook use and affordances.Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 168e176.

Fox, J., & Rooney, M. C. (2015). The Dark Triad and trait self-objectification as pre- dictors of men's use and self-presentation behaviors on social networking sites.

Personality and Individual Differences, 76, 161e165.

Gabriel, S., Renaud, J. M., & Tippin, B. (2007). When I think of you, I feel more confident about me: The relational self and self-confidence.Journal of Experi- mental Social Psychology, 43, 772e779.

Garcia, D., & Sikstr€om, S. (2014). The dark side of Facebook: Semantic representa- tions of status updates predict the dark triad of personality.Personality and Individual Differences, 67, 92e96.

Gentile, B., Miller, J. D., Hoffman, B. J., Reidy, D. E., Zeichner, A., & Campbell, W. K.

(2013). A test of two brief measures of grandiose narcissism: The narcissistic personality inventory-13 and the narcissistic personality inventory-16.Psy- chological Assessment, 25, 1120e1136.

Gore, J. S., Cross, S. E., & Kanagawa, C. (2008). Acting in our interests: Relational self- construal and goal motivation across cultures. Motivation and Emotion, 33, 75e87.

Grijalva, E., Newman, D. a., Tay, L., Donnellan, M. B., Harms, P. D., Robins, R. W., et al.

(2014). Gender differences in narcissism: A meta-analytic review.Psychological Bulletin, 141, 261e310.

Hargittai, E. (2007). Whose space? Differences among users and non-users of social network sites.Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13, 276e297.

Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium.Communication Monographs, 76, 408e420.

Hayes, A. F. (2013).Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis. New York: The Guilford Press.

Hepper, E. G., Hart, C. M., & Sedikides, C. (2014). Moving Narcissus: Can narcissists be empathic?Personality&Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1079e1091.

Hodson, G., Hogg, S. M., & MacInnis, C. C. (2009). The role of"dark personalities"

(narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy), Big Five personality factors, and ideology in explaining prejudice.Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 686e690.

Hollenbaugh, E. E., & Ferris, A. L. (2014). Facebook self-disclosure: Examining the role of traits, social cohesion, and motives.Computers in Human Behavior, 30, 50e58.

Horton, R. S., Reid, C. A., Barber, J. M., Miracle, J., & Green, J. D. (2014).Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 93e98.

Hughes, D. J., Rowe, M., Batey, M., & Lee, A. (2012). A tale of two sites: Twitter vs.

Facebook and the personality predictors of social media usage.Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 561e569.

Joiner, R., Gavin, J., Brosnan, M., Cromby, J., Gregory, H., Guiller, J., et al. (2012).

Gender, internet experience, internet identification, and internet anxiety: A ten-year followup. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 370e372.

Joiner, R., Stewart, C., Beaney, C., Moon, A., Maras, P., Guiller, J., et al. (2014). Pub- lically different, privately the same: Gender differences and similarities in response to Facebook status updates. Computers in Human Behavior, 39, 165e169.

Junco, R. (2013). Inequalities in Facebook use.Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2328e2336.

Karl, K., Peluchette, J., & Schlaegel, C. (2010). A cross-cultural examination of student attitudes and gender differences in Facebook profile content.International Journal of Virtual Communities and Social Networking, 2, 11e31.

Kernis, M. H., & Sun, C. R. (1994). Narcissism and reactions to interpersonal feed- back.Journal of Research in Personality, 28, 4e13.

Kokkinos, C. M., Baltzidis, E., & Xynogala, D. (2016). Prevalence and personality correlates of Facebook bullying/trollingamong university undergraduates.

Computers in Human Behavior, 55, 840e850.

Lin, X., Li, Y., Califf, C. B., & Featherman, M. (2013). Can social role theory explain gender differences in Facebook usage?. In46th Hawaii international conference on system sciences, 690e99.

Locke, K. D. (2009). Aggression, narcissism, self-esteem, and the attribution of desirable and humanizing traits to self versus others.Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 99e102.

M€antym€aki, M., & Najmul Islam, A. K. M. (2016). The Janus face of Facebook: Positive and negative sides of social networking site use.Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 14e26.

Marshall, T. C. (2010). Gender, peer relations, and intimate relationships. In J. C. Chrisler, & D. R. McCreary (Eds.),Handbook of gender research in psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 281e310). New York, NY: Springer.

Marshall, T. C., Lefringhausen, K., & Ferenczi, N. (2015). The bigfive, self-esteem, and narcissism as predictors of the topics people write about in Facebook status updates.Personality and Individual Differences, 85, 35e40.

Mattingly, B. A., Oswald, D. L., & Clark, E. M. (2011). An examination of relational- interdependent self-construal, communal strength, and pro-relationship be- haviors in friendships.Personality and Individual Differences, 50, 1243e1248.

McAndrew, F. T., & Jeong, H. (2012). Who does what on Facebook? Age, sex, and relationship status as predictors of Facebook use.Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 2359e2365.

Miller, J. D., & Campbell, W. K. (2008). Comparing clinical and social-personality conceptualizations of narcissism.Journal of Personality, 76, 449e476.

Morf, C. C., & Rhodewalt, F. (2001). Unraveling the paradoxes of narcissism: A dy- namic self-regulatory processing model.Psychological Inquiry, 12, 177e196.

Morry, M. M., & Kito, M. (2009). Relational-interdependent self-construal as a predictor of relationship quality: The mediating roles of one's own behaviors and perceptions of the fulfillment of friendship functions.The Journal of Social Psychology, 149, 305e322.

Muscanell, N. L., & Guadagno, R. E. (2012). Make new friends or keep the old:

Gender and personality differences in social networking use.Computers in Human Behavior, 2012(28), 107e112.

Nadkarni, A., & Hofmann, S. G. (2012). Why do people use Facebook?Personality and Individual Differences, 52, 243e249.

Ong, E. Y. L., Ang, R. P., Ho, J. C. M., Lim, J. C. Y., Goh, D. H., Lee, C. S., et al. (2011).

Narcissism, extraversion and adolescents' self-presentation onFacebook.Per- sonality and Individual Differences, 50, 180e185.

Park, L. E., Troisi, J. D., & Maner, J. K. (2010). Egoistic versus altruistic concerns in communal relationships. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 28, 315e335.

Paulhus, D. L., & Williams, K. M. (2002). The dark triad of personality: Narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopaths. Journal of Research in Personality, 36, 556e563.

Pempek, T. A., Yermolayeva, Y. A., & Calvert, S. L. (2009). College students' social networking experiences on Facebook.Journal of Applied Developmental Psy- chology, 30, 227e238.

Rafferty, R., & Vander Ven, T. (2014)."I hate everything about you": A qualititative examination of cyberbullying and on-line aggression in a college sample.

Deviant Behacvior, 35, 364e377.

Raskin, R., & Terry, H. (1988). A principal-components analysis of the Narcissistic Personality Inventory and further evidence of its construct validity.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 890e902.

Rhodewalt, F., & Morf, C. C. (1995). Self and interpersonal correlates of the narcis- sistic personality inventory: A review and newfindings.Journal of Research in Personality, 29, 1e23.

Ryan, T., & Xenos, S. (2011). Who uses Facebook? An investigation into the rela- tionship between the Big Five, shyness, narcissism, loneliness, and Facebook

usage.Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1658e1664.

Seidman, G. (2013). Self-presentation and belonging on Facebook: How personality influences social media use and motivations.Personality and Individual Differ- ences, 54, 402e407.

Seidman, G. (2014). Expressing the"True self.Cpmputers in Human Behavior, 31, 367e372.

Sest, N., & March, E. (2017). Constructing the cyber-troll: Psychopathy, sadism, and empathy.Personality and Individual Differences, 119, 69e72.

Sheldon, K. M., Abad, N., & Hinsch, C. (2011). A two-process view of Facebook use and relatedness need-satisfaction: Disconnection drives use, and connection rewards it.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 766e775.

Sosik, V. S., & Bazarova, N. N. (2014). Relational maintenance on social network sites: How Facebook communication predicts relational escalation.Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 124e131.

Thacker, S., & Griffiths, M. D. (2012). An exploratory study of trolling in online video gaming.International Journal of Cyber Behavior, Psychology and Learning, 2,

17e33.

Tifferet, S., & Vilnai-Yavetz, I. (1991). Gender differences in Facebook self- presentation: An international randomized study. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 388e399.

Twenge, J. M., & Campbell, W. K. (2003).“Isn’t it fun to get the respect that we’re going todeserve?”Narcissism, social rejection, and aggression.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 261e272.

Trafimow, D., Triandis, H. C., & Goto, S. G. (1991). Some tests of the distinction between the private self and the collective self.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 649e655.

Willard, N. E. (2007).Cyberbullying and cyberthreats: Responding to the challenge of online social aggression, threats, and distress (p. 363). Illinois: Champaign Research Press.

Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2002). A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: Implications for the origins of sex differences.Psychological Bulletin, 128, 699e727.